The Unity and Continuity of Matthew 24 (Olivet Discourse), part 2

The Unity and Continuity of Matthew 24 (Olivet Discourse), part 2

Below is the seventh of multiple excerpts of commentary from Parts I and II of The Parousia, the late 19th-century masterpiece on the Second Coming by James Stuart Russell. The initial 31 posts on this blog deal with the Book of Revelation, which is cogently interpreted in Part III of Russell's magnum opus. (For all blog posts, see russellparousia.blogspot.com)

[Note: In this excerpt, Russell continues (see previous post) to set forth his argument that Jesus' apocalyptic prophecy in Matthew 24 (with parallels at Mark 13 and Luke 21) is a continuous whole -- one that cannot be broken into artificial time divisions that allegedly refer to both A.D. 70 and post-A.D. 70 events, which are supposedly indicated by detectable transitions in the prophecy's subject matter. Rather, the sole focus of the circa A.D. 30 prophecy, known as the apocalyptic discourse on the Mount of Olives or Olivet Discourse, is the impending destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, which occurred in A.D. 70.] "5. It may indeed be objected [by those making the "beyond A.D. 70" interpretation of Matthew 24] that even admitting the apostles to have been occupied exclusively with the fate of the temple and the events of their own time, there is no reason [according to this line of interpretation] why the Lord should not overpass the limits of their vision, and extend a prophetic glance into the ages of a distant futurity. No doubt it was competent for Him to do so; but in that case we should expect to find some hint or intimation of the fact; some well-defined line between the immediate future and the indefinitely remote. If the Saviour passes from Jerusalem and its day of doom to the world and its judgment day, it would be only reasonable to look for some phrase such as, 'After many days,' or, ' It shall come to pass after these things,' to mark the transition. But we search in vain for any such indication. The attempts of expositors to draw transition lines in this [Matthew 24] prophecy showing where it ceases to speak of Jerusalem and Israel and passes to remote events and unborn generations, are wholly unsatisfactory. Nothing can be more arbitrary than the divisions attempted to be set up; they will not bear a moment's examination, and are incompatible with the express statements of the prophecy itself. Will it be believed that some expositors find a mark of transition at Matt. xxiv. 29 [Matt. 24:29] where our Lord's own words make the very idea totally inadmissible by His own note of time 'Immediately'! [Greek: eutheos] If, in the face of such authority, so rash a suggestion can be proposed, what may not be expected in less strongly marked cases? But, in fact, all attempts to set up imaginary divisions and transitions in the prophecy signally fail. Let any fair and candid reader [be the] judge of the scheme of Dr. [Johann Peter] Lange, who may be taken as a representative of the school of double-sense expositors [i.e., those who argue that Matthew 24 refers not only to the destruction of the Temple, but also to events beyond A.D. 70]...and say [i.e., determine] whether it is possible to discern any trace of a natural division where he [Lange] draws lines of transition. His first section, from [Matthew 24] ver. 4 to ver. 14, he entitles, '"Signs, and the manifestation of the end of the world in general. "What! is it conceivable that our Lord, when about to reply to the eager and palpitating hearts, filled with anxiety about the calamities which He told them were impending, should commence by speaking of the 'end of the world in general'? They were thinking of the temple and the immediate future: would He speak of the world and the indefinitely remote? But is there anything in this first section inapplicable to the disciples themselves and their time? Is there anything which did not actually happen in their own day? ' 'Yes,' it will be said[:] 'the gospel of the kingdom has not yet been preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations' [Matthew 24:14]. But we have this very fact vouched for by St. Paul (Col. i. 5, 6) [Colossians 1:5-6]---'The word of the truth of the gospel, which is come unto you, as it is in all the world,' etc.; and, again (Col. i. 23) [Col. 1:23]---'The gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven.' There was, then, in the age of the apostles, such a world-wide diffusion of the gospel [throughout the Roman Empire] as to satisfy the Saviour's predictions--- 'The gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the wor[l]d' ([Greek:] oikoumene). "But the decisive objection to this scheme [of Lange] is, that the whole passage is evidently [i.e., in an evident or clear manner] addressed to the disciples, and speaks of what they shall see, they shall do, they shall suffer; the whole [prophecy] falls within their own observation and experience, and cannot be spoken of or to an invisible audience in a far distant era of futurity, which even yet has not appeared upon the earth. Lange's next division, comprising from [Matt. 24] ver. 15 to ver. 22, is entitled, '''signs of the end of the world in particular: (a) The Destruction of Jerusalem. "Without stopping to inquire into the relation of these ideas [relating to alleged divisions of and transitions in Matthew 24], it is satisfactory to find Jerusalem at last introduced [in Lange's explanation of the prophecy]. But how unnatural [is] the transition from the 'end of the world' back to the invasion of Judea and the siege of Jerusalem! Could such a sudden and immense leap have possibly been made by the disciples? Could it have been intelligible to them, or is it intelligible now? But mark the point of transition, as fixed by Lange, at ver. 15: 'When ye, therefore, shall see the abomination of desolation,' etc. This, surely, is not transition [at Matt. 24:15], but continuity: all that precedes [in Matt. 24:1-14] leads up to this point; the wars, and famines, and pestilences, and persecutions, and martyrdoms, were all preparatory and introductory to the 'end;' that is, to the final catastrophe which was to overtake the city, and temple, and nation of Israel [in A.D. 70]. "Next follows a paragraph from [Matt. 24] ver. 23 to ver. 28, which Lange calls "' (b) Interval of partial and suppressed judgment.' "This title is itself an example of fanciful and arbitrary exposition. There is something incongruous and self-contradictory in the very words themselves. A day of judgment implies publicity and manifestation, not silence and suppression. But what can be the meaning of 'silent and suppressed days of judgment,' which go on from the destruction of Jerusalem to the end of the world? If it be meant that there is a sense in which God is always judging the world, that is a truism which might be affirmed of any period, before as well as after the destruction of Jerusalem. But the most objectionable part of this exposition is the violent treatment of the word 'then' (Greek: tote, ver. 23 [Matthew 24:23]. Lange says: 'Then, i.e., in the time intervening between the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world).' Surely, a prodigious [use of] then! It is no longer a point of time, but an aeon--- a vast and indefinite period; and during all that time the statements in the paragraph, [Matt. 24] ver. 23 to ver. 28, are supposed to be [still] in course of fulfilment. But when we turn to the [Matthew 24] prophecy itself we find no change of subject, no break in the continuity of the discourse, no hint of any transition from one epoch to another. The note of time, 'then' ([Greek:] tote) is decisive against any hiatus or transition. Our Saviour is putting the disciples on their guard against the deceivers and impostors who infested the last days of the Jewish commonwealth; and says to them, 'Then' (i.e., at that time, in the agony of the Jewish[-Roman] war [which culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem and Temple in A.D. 70]) 'if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there, believe it not [Matt. 24:23],' etc. It is [1st-century] Jerusalem, always Jerusalem, and only Jerusalem, of which our Lord here speaks." [to be concluded in next post]